This month we will all delay and watch a day our country puts aside as an occasion. It is “Thanksgiving Day.” Hopefully all Americans will interruption to recollect exactly how appreciative they ought to be for the benefits and gifts managed us. It is far fetched that will happen as a result of the chose move in the direction of mainstream humanism our legislature and society has taken.

It hasn’t generally been that way. In 1863, a respectable statesman from Kentucky composed the fol­lowing Thanksgiving Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln composed:

It is the obligation of countries and of man to claim their reliance upon the overruling energy of God; to admit their wrongdoings and transgressions in humble distress, yet with guaranteed trust that certified atonement will prompt leniency and exonerate; and to perceive the magnificent truth, declared in the Holy Scriptures and demonstrated by all history, that those countries are honored whose God is the Lord.

We realize that by His heavenly law, countries, similar to people, are subjected to pun­ishments and rebukes in this world. May we not evenhandedly expect that the terrible calam­ity of common war which now devastates the land might be a discipline incurred upon us for our pretentious sins, to the needful end of our national reorganization all in all individuals?

We have been the beneficiaries of the choicest bounties of paradise; we have been saved these numerous years in peace and flourishing; we have developed in numbers, riches and influence as no other country has ever developed.

In any case, we have overlooked God. We have overlooked the thoughtful hand which saved us in peace and increased and improved and reinforced us, and we have vainly envisioned, in the misdirection of our souls, that every one of these endowments were pro­duced by some predominant insight and uprightness of our own. Inebriated with unbroken suc­cess, we have turned out to be excessively independent, making it impossible to feel the need of reclaiming and saving effortlessness, excessively pleased, making it impossible to implore the God that made us.

It has appeared to me fit and legitimate that God ought to be gravely, respectfully and appreciatively recognized, as with one heart and one voice, by the entire American individuals. I do hence welcome my kindred residents in all aspects of the United States, and furthermore the individuals who are adrift and the individuals who are visiting in remote grounds, to separate and watch the last Thursday of November, a day of Thanksgiving and acclaim to our valuable Father Who dwelleth in the sky. — A. Lincoln, 1863

What a pity that men who manage our legislature and men who significantly impact the ethical quality of our general public today don’t have the notions communicated by one of the best pioneers this country at any point created.

Give us a chance to be appreciative consistently, and particularly this period of the year. When we assemble as families on Thanksgiving Day, let us be really grateful for the generosity God has extravagantly spilled out on us.

 

The Bible is a closed book to many in the world today. However, the Bible makes it evident that we cannot please God without “the faith” (or system) that comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17; Jude 3). Why else would the Word of God be given, if man could save himself without hearing the Gospel? The Hebrew writer wrote, “But without faith [in the Truth, GC], it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God [in obedient faith, GC] must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). Many today deny that God exists; rather, they say that man is god and should, therefore, live as he pleases instead of living as God pleases. Atheists, evolutionists, infidels, liberals, and free thinkers think that they have no reason to believe the Bible or that the God of Heaven exists. Of course, they are wrong and, furthermore, are without excuse. Paul wrote to the Roman brethren, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). His attributes are clearly understood by those things that are made! Only a fool can look at the world around us and deny that a great mind and a creator made them (Ps. 14:1). “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God” (Heb. 3:4).

Thanks so much to http://www.precisionsarasota.com for sponsoring my blog.

 

The 53rd section of Isaiah has frequently been known as the “Agony Servant” entry. It is the fourth in a progression of entries managing “the Servant” or “the Servant of the Lord.” The gospel scholars recognize Jesus of Nazareth as satisfying these verses. From these sections in Isaiah we are given a perspective of His life and character in the times of His substance, His delicacy and in addition His energy, and the considerable deliverance He would bring, for the Jews, as well as for all the world.

Isaiah started his service around 740 B.C. furthermore, finished in 680 B.C. God, through Isaiah, gives us an unmistakable picture of what was to happen, in the prompt future for Israel, as well as how He would bring the Messiah, His “Affliction Servant,” into the world and enable Him to be relinquished for the wrongdoings of the world.

Sections 40 through 66 of Isaiah examine the Babylonian imprisonment and the purposes behind it, lastly the rebuilding from it. In any case, there would have been a more prominent deliverance than that from Babylon, and there would be a more prominent “savior” than Cyrus, the lord of Persia.

Isaiah 53 is one of the best-cherished sections of Scripture. It was this very entry that made the Ethiopian ask of Philip, “of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” (Acts 8:34). Philip started at Isaiah 53 and “lectured Jesus to him” (Acts 8:35).

We have to call attention to that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is presented before in the book of Isaiah, and is said in four separate areas of the book. In this article, we will inspect each of the four areas of Isaiah which manage the Suffering Servant.

The Servant Has A Mission

“See! My Servant whom I maintain, My Elect One in whom My spirit delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will deliver equity to the Gentiles. He won’t shout out, nor raise His voice, nor make His voice be heard in the road. A wounded reed He won’t break, and smoking flax He won’t extinguish; He will deliver equity for truth. He won’t fizzle nor be demoralized, Till He has set up equity in the earth; and the coastlands might sit tight for His law.” (Isa. 42:1-4).

Who is it that God maintains, picks, takes pleasure in and gives His Spirit to? A hireling! God rejects despots and overlords and picks a hireling! At the point when the Pharisees consulted Jesus with a specific end goal to devastate him, the hoards took after our Lord and He recuperated them. Matthew straightforwardly connected these verses to Christ, saying the healings were played out “that it may be satisfied which was talked by Isaiah the prophet” (Matt. 12:15-21).

We see in Isaiah 42:1 that the Servant was to be picked by God – not simply anybody could play out this assignment. God would get a kick out of this One. We review the expressions of the Father at the sanctification of Jesus, “This is My adored Son, in whom I am very much satisfied” (Matt. 3:17). Once more, at the transfiguration of Jesus, we hear the Father say, “This is My darling Son, in whom I am very much satisfied. Hear Him!” (Matt. 17:5).

One exhibition of the joy the Father would have in Him was the happening to the Holy Spirit upon His Servant. This was satisfied at the immersion of our Lord. John the Baptist gave testimony this and stated, “I saw the Spirit plummeting from paradise like a pigeon, and He stayed upon Him. I didn’t have any acquaintance with Him, however He who sent me to purify through water with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit diving, and staying on Him, this is He who sanctifies through water with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and affirmed this is the Son of God.” (John 1:32-34). Jesus Himself stated, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, since He has blessed Me to lecture the gospel to poor people. He has sent Me to recuperate the beaten down, to lecture deliverance to the prisoners and recuperation of sight to the visually impaired, to set at freedom the individuals who are mistreated, to lecture the satisfactory year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18-19).

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 42:2 stands in sharp diverge from common victors – His mien is not quite the same as that of conventional men. Jesus did not go into rough debate with false educators, but instead utilized the energy of words and reason. Indeed, even His foes needed to concede, “No man at any point talked like this Man” (John 7:46).

Christ would have feel sorry for on their low home (Isa. 42:3). Matthew reveals to us that when Jesus “saw the hoards, He was moved with sympathy for them, since they were fatigued and scattered, similar to sheep having no shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). The Servant of the Lord would not smash men, nor extinguish their soul. He would not tie loads hard to tolerate (Matt. 23:4; Acts 15:5, 10). In perspective of these words we need to review the kind and delicate welcome of our Savior to delinquents (Matt. 11:28-30).

Isaiah 42:4 additionally contains a suggested trouble, i.e., the likelihood of the Suffering Servant becoming powerless (Isa. 42:4).

His main goal is to the “coastlands” or the “islands” (Isa. 42:4), “and in His name Gentiles will put stock in” (Matt. 12:21). The kingdom of Cyrus was constrained to one segment of the earth. The Law of Moses was for the country of Israel alone. The Suffering Servant would be of advantage to all humankind.

The Servant Has Great Difficulties In His Mission

“Tune in, O coastlands, to Me, and notice, you people groups from a remote place! The Lord has called Me from the womb; from the lattice of My mom He has talked about My name. What’s more, He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of His hand He has concealed Me, and made Me a cleaned shaft; in His quiver He has shrouded Me. What’s more, He said to me, ‘You are My hireling, O Israel, in whom I will be celebrated.’ Then I stated, ‘I have toiled futile, I have spent my quality to no end and futile; yet most likely my simply reward is with the Lord, and my work with my God.’ And now the Lord says, Who framed Me from the womb to be His Servant, to take Jacob back to Him, so Israel is assembled to Him (for I might be superb according to the Lord, and My God should be My quality), Indeed He says, ‘It is too little a thing that You ought to be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to reestablish the protected ones of Israel; I will likewise give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You ought to be My salvation to the finishes of the earth.’ Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One, to Him whom man detests, to Him whom the country hates, to the Servant of rulers: ‘Rulers might see and emerge, Princes additionally should venerate, as a result of the Lord who is loyal, the Holy One of Israel; and He has picked You.'” (Isa. 49:1-7).

The Servant is the speaker in these verses, yet He didn’t take this obligation upon Himself – the Lord called Him into this administration. Once more, the Gentiles are welcome to tune in (Isa. 49:1). The Lord knew His Servant from His mom’s womb – this guidelines out the likelihood of the Servant being the country of Israel.

The Servant was to “reestablish the protected ones of Israel” (Isa. 49:6). Saul of Tarsus who was among this exemplary leftover of Israel (Rom. 9:1-8; 11:1-5).

In satisfaction of the expressions of Isaiah, Christ turned into a light to the Gentiles. “The place that is known for Zebulun and the place that is known for Naphtali, the method for the ocean, past the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: the general population who sat in dimness saw an extraordinary light, and upon the individuals who sat in the area and shadow of death light has unfolded” (Matt. 4:15-16; cf. Isa. 9:1-2). After Paul had been dismisses by the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia, he stated, “It was vital that the expression of God ought to be addressed you first; however since you dismiss it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, view, we swing to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46).

Jesus told the Syro-Phoenician lady that He had been sent to the “lost sheep of the place of Israel” (Matt. 15:22-24). At the point when the pupils were conveyed on the Limited Commission they were advised not to go to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6). In any case, in the Great Commission the missionaries were sent to all countries of the earth (Matt. 28:19).

The Servant Will Suffer

“The Lord God has given Me The tongue of the realized, that I ought to know how to talk a word in season to him who is tired. He stirs Me morning by morning, He stirs My ear to hear as the educated. The Lord God has opened My ear; and I was not insubordinate, nor did I dismiss. I gave My back to the individuals who struck Me, and My cheeks to the individuals who culled out the whiskers; I didn’t conceal My face from disgrace and spitting. For the Lord God will help Me; along these lines I won’t be disrespected; in this way I have set My face like a stone, and I realize that I won’t be embarrassed. He is close who legitimizes Me; Who will fight with Me? Give us a chance to stand together. Who is My enemy? Give him a chance to draw close to Me. Without a doubt the Lord God will help Me; who is he who will denounce Me? In fact they will all develop old like a piece of clothing; the moth will gobble them up.” (Isa. 50:4-9).

The particular predictions of Isaiah 50:4-9 were satisfied by Christ when Pilate “conveyed Him to be killed” (Matt. 27:26).

Hirelings of God have dependably experienced issues satisfying their main goal. The Suffering Servant would not escape from His work as Jonah did (Isa. 50:5; Jonah 1:3). We hear our Lord tell those in the primary century, “Favored are the individuals who are mistreated for nobility’s purpose, For theirs is the kingdom of paradise. Favored are you when they censure and mistreat you, and say a wide range of malice against you dishonestly for My purpose. Cheer and be exceedingly happy, for incredible is your reward in paradise, for so they aggrieved the prophets who were before you.” (Matt. 5:10-12).

The striking dialect of Isaiah 50:6 brings to mind the anguish of our Lord before His excursion to the cross, where His back was given to the smiters and where evil men culled the facial hair from off His face (Matt. 26:67-68; 27:26-31).

On the Sunday before His death on the cross, Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem. Great multitudes of people took palm branches and went out to meet Him, while crying out “Hosanna! ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ The king of Israel!” (John 12:12-13). In order to fully understand this passage, we must realize how excited the crowd was. They had come to Jerusalem for the Passover, and along the way had heard about Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.

National feelings were always high during Jewish feast days. On this occasion the crowds were like dry kindling, ready to blaze up, and Lazarus was a match. The Jewish rulers had already decided to kill Lazarus “because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus” (John 12:11).

“At such a time Jerusalem and the villages round about were crowded. On one occasion a census was taken of the lambs slain at the Passover Feast. The number was given as 256,000. There had to be a minimum of ten people per lamb; and if that estimate is correct it means that there must have been as many as 2,700,000 people at that Passover Feast.” (William Barclay, Commentary on John, p. 115).

Try to picture in your mind the Jews streaming into Bethany to gaze at a risen man and the Messiah they had longed for (John 12:9).

As the jubilant crowds welcomed Christ into the city, they waved palm branches — a symbol of victory and rejoicing. The crowds also shouted, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah,” a chant taken from Psalms 118:26. In that Psalm the phrase, “he that cometh in the name of Jehovah” meant the worshipper drawing near the temple. The added the words, “King of Israel,” diverted the expression to Jesus. “Hosanna” is from a Hebrew word which means “save we pray.”

William Barclay said of this Psalm: “Further, this was characteristically the conqueror’s psalm. To take but one instance, these very verses were sung and shouted by the Jerusalem crowd when the welcomed back Simon Maccabaeus after he had conquered Acra and wrested it from Syrian dominion more than a hundred years before. There is no doubt that when the people sang this psalm they were looking on Jesus as God’s Anointed One, the Messiah, the Deliverer, the One who was to come. And there is no doubt that they were looking on him as the Conqueror. To them it must have been only a matter of time until the trumpets rang out and call to arms sounded and the Jewish nation swept to its long delayed victory over Rome and the world. Jesus approached Jerusalem with the shout of the mob hailing a conqueror in his ears — and it must have hurt him, for they were looking in him for that very thing which he refused to be.” (Commentary on John, p. 117).

Earlier in His ministry Jesus had pulled back from the crowds and on one occasion “when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to a mountain by Himself alone” (John 6:15). He had sought every possible way to avoid publicity (John 5:13; Mark 3:1-12; Mark 5:35-43; Mark 9:2-9). Now, Jesus deliberately sets Himself to intensify the excitement of the crowd.

Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, which was a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Zech. 9:9).

The scene presents an interesting contrast between Jesus and the Zealots. The Zealots were ready for a hand to hand fight with Rome, while Jesus chose a slow paced donkey to bear Him into the city.

“With us the ass is lowly and despised; but in the East it was a noble animal. Jair, the Judge, had thirty sons who rode on asses’ colts (Judges 10:4). Ahithopel rode upon an ass (2 Samuel 17:23). Mephi-bosheth, the royal prince, the son of Saul, came to David riding upon an ass (2 Samuel 19:26). The point is that a king came riding upon a horse when he was bent on war; he came riding upon an ass when he was coming in peace. This action of Jesus is a sign that he was not the warrior figure men dreamed of, but the Prince of Peace. No one saw it that way at that time, not even the disciples, who should have known so much better. The minds of all were filled with a kind of mob hysteria. Here was the one who was to come. But they looked for the Messiah of their own dreams and their own wishful thinking; they did not look for the Messiah whom God had sent. Jesus drew a dramatic picture of what he claimed to be, but none understood the claim.” (William Barclay, Commentary on John, p. 118).

To help us further appreciate our Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, let us notice how a victorious Roman general would receive an official “triumph” parade upon his return to Rome. “Only those were eligible for it who had won a campaign in which 5000 of the enemy had been slain; the unfortunate commander who had won with less slaughter received merely an ovation — for him no ox was sacrificed, but only a sheep (ovis). The procession formed outside the city, at whose borders the general and his troops were required to lay down their arms; thence it entered through a triumphal arch that set a fashion for a thousand monuments. Trumpeters led the march; after them came towers or floats representing the captured cities, and pictures showing the exploits of the victors; then wagons rumbled by, heavy with gold, silver, works of art, and other spoils. Marcellus’ triumph was memorable for the stolen statuary of Syracuse (212); Scipio Africanus in 207 displayed 14,000 and, in 202, 123,000 pounds of silver taken from Spain and Carthage. Seventy white oxen followed, walking philosophically to their death; then the captured chiefs of the enemy; then lictors, harpers, pipers, and incense-bearers; then, in a flamboyant chariot, the general himself, wearing a purple toga and a crown of gold, and bearing an ivory scepter and a laurel branch as emblems of victory and the insignia of Jove. In the chariot with him might be his children; beside it rode his relatives; behind them his secretaries and aides. Last came the soldiers, some carrying the prizes awarded them, every one wearing a crown; some praising their leaders, others deriding them; for it was an inviolable tradition that on these brief occasions the speech of the army should be free and unpunished, to remind the proud victors of their fallible mortality. The general mounted the Capitol to the Temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, laid his loot at the feet of the gods, presented an animal in sacrifice, and usually ordered the captive chieftains to be slain as an additional thank-offering. It was a ceremony well designed to stir military ambition and reward military effort; for man’s vanity yields only to hunger and love.” (Will Durant, Caesar And Christ, pp. 82-83).

Brother J. W. McGarvey observed: “It has been the custom of all lands to bestrew in some manner the pathway of those who are thought worthy of the highest honor. When Lafayette visited our fathers after the Revolution the roads over which he approached our cities were strewn with flowers. Thus over flowers Alexander entered Babylon, and Xerxes crossed the bridge of Hellespont over a myrtle-strewn pathway. Monier tells of a Persian ruler who in modern times made his honored progress over a road covered for three miles with roses. But it is more natural to contrast the entry of Jesus with the Roman triumphs so popular in that day. The wealth of conquered kingdoms was expended to insure their magnificence. We find none of that tinsel and specious glitter in the triumph of Christ. No hired multitudes applaud him; no gold-braided banners wave in his honor. There is nothing here but the lusty, honest shout of the common people, and the swaying of the God-made banners of the royal palms. The rich in purse, the learned in schoolcraft and the high in office were, as usual, not there.” (The Fourfold Gospel, pp. 576-577).

The entry of Christ into the city of Jerusalem was not only a literal fulfillment of prophecy, but it was a demonstration of the nature of His kingdom (John 18:36). The Prince of Peace entered the city of David while riding upon a donkey, not upon a horse as if ready for war.

A few days after His entry into Jerusalem, the tide of public opinion would turn against Christ. Our Savior knew this would happen, for on the day of His entry into Jerusalem He said, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself” (John 12:32). John tells us that Jesus said these words “signifying by what death He would die” (John 12:33).

Some of the same people who had cut down palm branches to welcome the Son of God into their city would soon stand in front of Pilate’s judgment hall and cry out for the death of the Lamb of God.

The apostle John records the scene as Pilate presents the innocent Jesus to a stirred-up Jewish mob. “Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’ But they cried out, ‘Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar!’ So he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and led Him away.” (John 19:14-16).

The book of Deuteronomy contains many warnings and admonitions for the people of God as they are about to enter the land of Canaan. The eighteenth chapter of the book contains a remarkable passage regarding the origin of the prophetic institution. God was going to raise up a body of men and put His word in their mouth (Deut. 18:9-22).

The Levites were the appointed teachers of the Law. However, in the promised land there would be new circumstances which would require further revelation from God. Canaan was a land filled with superstition — they claimed detailed knowledge of the future, but their sources were declared abominations by God, so Jehovah promised to raise up prophets to make known His will. In this article we will notice the superstitions employed by the Canaanites during the time of Moses (as described in Deut. 18:10-12), and then see how Christ was “the Prophet” God would raise up.

Superstitions Of The Canaanites

The first superstition of the Canaanites mentioned by Moses was febration — the practice of one making “his son or his daughter pass through the fire” (Deut. 18:10). The purpose of febration was to obtain an oracle, or to avert national disaster (cf. Deut. 12:29-31). This practice was common among the worshipers of Moloch, the national deity of Ammonites (Lev. 18:21). This abomination caused God to root out the Canaanites (Lev. 18:24-30).

“To Baal-Haman, in great crises, living children were sacrificed, as many as three hundred in a day. They were placed upon the inclined and outstretched arms of the idol and rolled off into the fire beneath; their cries were drowned in the noise of trumpets and cymbals; their mothers were required to look upon the scene without moan or tear, lest they be accused of impiety and lose the credit due them from the god.” (Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 42).

The next three terms used by Moses describe various methods of divination, including “one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens.” God wanted His people to know these practices were powerless against His people, as expressed in Numbers 23:23, “For there is no sorcery against Jacob, nor is there any divination against Israel.” No soothsayer has any power against Israel, for Israel receives her information from the Lord.

Moses also mentions two other classes of divination, “a sorcerer, or one who conjures a spell,” followed by two groups who seek after the dead, “a medium, or a spiritist.” Manasseh reinstituted many of these crimes when he was King in Judah (2 Kings 21:1-6). “Although these two words, ‘ghost’ and ‘familiar spirit’ are used side by side, there was nevertheless a distinction between them. The person who was possessed of an ob (ghost) was evidently a ventriloquist. Like the witch at Endor he might call up the ob and describe what he saw. Those about him would probably hear only a muttering or twittering which seemed to come from the ground. The ‘familiar spirit’ however, was evidently a spirit that was at the beck and call of a particular person.” (Edward J. Young, My Servants The Prophets, p. 23).

“One who calls up the dead” is a comprehensive term which covers all forms of spiritualism.

“The context refers to sorcery, divination, spiritism, and other similar practices. Excavations at different sites have uncovered a great number of figurines, charms, amulets, and other objects connected with sorcery, fertility cults, demon exorcism, and pagan superstitions that at times propagated themselves in Israel to such an extent that legislators, prophets, and some rulers had frequently to warn the people against them.” (Gonzalo Baez-Camargo, Archaeological Commentary On The Bible, p. 55).

“The list is indeed impressive. These superstitious practices which were so much in vogue among the Canaanites of ancient time are the reason why the Lord will dispossess these people of their land. Moses then advances a step. Not only are these practices in themselves abominations, he says, but also every one that doeth them is an abomination in the sight of the Lord. It is for this reason that God will drive out the Canaanites from their land. It is well that we should grasp this fact, for it has sometimes been maintained that the God of the Old Testament was an arbitrary despot, who drove out the Canaanites and brought Israel into Palestine, and this, it has been said, was a cruel, arbitrary act. Such a judgment, however, is unjust, and out of accord with the facts. God, in dispossessing the Canaanites, was doing a gracious and merciful thing to the remainder of the world. The Canaanites, through their abominations, had themselves become abominations. If there was to be any salvation for the world, Canaan must go. The cup of their iniquity had filled, and they could no longer be permitted to exist as heretofore. Let no one, then, charge God with lack of justice in His treatment of Canaan.” (Edward Young, p. 24).

In spite of all of the means of divination used by her neighbors, Israel would not have to resort to such means, for God would raise up a Prophet “from your midst, from your brethren” (Deut. 18:15). Therefore, there would be no reason for Israel to turn to heathen soothsayers. God was going to raise up a body of prophets to declare His words, and later He would raise up one great Prophet, who alone could compare to Moses.

Christ Is God’s Final Prophet

The New Testament often speaks of Christ as “the Prophet,” a reference back to the promise given by God to Moses in Deuteronomy 18.

As John opens his account of the life of Christ he tells of the work of John the Baptist. On one occasion priests and Levites from Jerusalem went to John and inquired as to whether or not he was the Christ (John 1:19-23). When John denied being the long-awaited Messiah the priests and Levites then asked if he was Elijah, to which John answered “I am not.” They then asked, “Are you the Prophet?” They wanted to know if John was “the Prophet” Moses had promised centuries before — the answer was “No.”

It was in the region of the Sea of Galilee that Jesus fed the 5,000 with “five barley loaves and two small fish” (John 6:1-14). When the people had been fed and there was still bread to spare, they said, “This is truly the Prophet, who is come into the world” (John 6:14).

On one occasion Jesus healed a lame man at the Pool of Bethesda. “Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Jesus told these Jews, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39). There are many Old Testament passages which speak of Christ, but the one He had in mind on this occasion was found in the writings of Moses. Jesus said, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you — Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:45-47).

What did Moses say about Christ? God told Moses, “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.” (Deut. 18:18-19). This passage was speaking of Christ, for Peter quoted it in Acts 3:22-23 and applied it to Him. Stephen quoted this same passage in the sermon which cost him his life (Acts 7:37).

On the Mount of Transfiguration our Lord stood with Moses and Elijah and discussed His impending death. Peter, overwhelmed in the moment, said, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah” (Matt. 17:4). However, “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!'” (Matt. 17:5). The point is clear: as great as Moses and Elijah were in their won right, we are to listen to God’s Son today!

Jesus is God’s final spokesman. The Hebrew writer reminds us of how “God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…” (Heb. 1:1-2).

Conclusion

Concerning “the Prophet” who was to come, God said, “whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him” (Deut. 18:19). The Hebrew writer mentions the consequences of neglecting the message of Christ. “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?” (Heb. 2:1-4).

Have you listened to the words of Christ, God’s final spokesman? If you reject the message of Christ, you will have rejected your only means of eternal salvation!

Modern premillennial theory insists God had not anticipated the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. They often think that God was shocked when Jesus “came to His own, and His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11). They also teach that one day Christ will return to this earth and the Jews will then accept Him as their Messiah. The Bible teaches that the Father in heaven knew all along how the Jews would react to His Son Jesus. God had planned the time perfectly and “when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Galatians 4:4).

Have you ever considered what would have happened if the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Savior and King? Let’s look at the consequences:

First, there would have been no crucifixion, and hence no shedding of blood. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). However, Jesus spent His entire earthly life preparing for the cross. “‘And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.’ This He said, signifying by what death He would die.” (John 12:23-33).

Second, since there would have been no shedding of blood, there could be no remission of sins. “And according to the law almost all things are purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). On the night in which He was betrayed, as He instituted the Lord’s Supper, Jesus said, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28).

Third, the church would have never been established, since it was purchased with the precious blood of Christ. When Paul addressed the elders from Ephesus, he admonished them “to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). The church is composed of saved people. In the New Testament, “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47).

Fourth, if the Jews had accepted Christ as their Messiah, there would be no gospel, since the foundation of it is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4). This “message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).

Premillennialists usually have very little use for the gospel of Christ — they look upon it with contempt, however, “it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21). Do you believe in the power of the gospel?

 

Given the nature of the content, How to Read the Bible, by Steven McKenzie is a surprisingly quick and easy read. In fact, it seems as though McKenzie went out of his way to ensure that all readers (including serious students and scholars) could enjoy and benefit from his research and collected thoughts. McKenzie’s underlying premise is that the modern reader often misses the primary point of scripture simply because he approaches the text with the wrong assumptions and presuppositions. In other words, the modern reader often reads the Bible through the lens of literal history, when in fact, it rarely actually takes that form of literature.

McKenzie begins with a case study of Jonah to demonstrate the importance of genre in biblical interpretation. In so doing, he successfully redirected readers’ attention to the fundamental method and message of the book and away from failed attempts to explain and justify the events of the story as purely historical. Once he presented and defended his case for the importance of genre, he redirected his attention to a discussion of form criticism.

The book is broken down into five chapters where the author dedicates each chapter to a review and discussion of various genres found in the biblical literature— history, prophecy, wisdom, apocalyptic, and epistles. Specifically, he sets out to demonstrate exactly how that type of literature (by primarily utilizing the Old Testament text) ought to be read and understood; along with also seeking to show the biblical student what are the most common mistakes made when dealing with that type of literature.

In his discussion on historiography, the author highlights the idea that the biblical writers were motivated by etiological means—that is, the effort to seek to explain the cause or origin of something; where the “primary objective of ancient history writing was to ‘render an account’ of the past that explained the present.” In doing so, he walks the reader through various texts in Genesis. One potential flaw on the part of the author is to focus too narrowly on the etiological influences and ignore the theological imports; which often demonstrate themselves in applications of the text. For example, in his discussion of the Tower of Babel incident, McKenzie concludes, “Its intent is to provide an explanation for the origins of the different human languages and cultures associated with them” (p. 39). While this is true, the story is also meant (if not primarily meant) to demonstrate the theological point that sin had created a separation between humans and God.

In the chapter on biblical prophecy, McKenzie explains how prophets exhorted their audiences through the use of predictions of curses or blessings in the immediate future, not so-called prophecies of events in the distant future. This chapter also provides an insightful examination of the manner in which the New Testament authors utilize Old Testament prophecy and reinterpret the text to serve their own specific needs. For example, the Gospel of Matthew reinterprets Isaiah Christologically, even though it is clear that Isaiah was actually referring to an event that was to take place in the immediate future. In this regard McKenzie attempts to demonstrate the actual nature of the use of both the Old and New Testament prophets; and to refute the implications and assertions modern interpreters. At this point, he is essentially pulling the rug out from under most “traditional” church-goers who have consistently identified Isaiah’s text as supremely Christological in nature. To that extent, he may have done well to help his reader make this change a little easier.

In this same light, the following chapter was difficult for this self-appointed traditionalist, where McKenzie effectively laid bare all preconceived notions on the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. Specifically referring to the Proverbs, after revealing multiple inconsistencies in the nature of the proverbs he addresses them by stating that “there was no single ‘right’ way of looking at things. There was disagreement, because life was and is complex, and circumstances fluctuate. What may be true for one person or a given situation is not necessarily universally so.” After addressing both Job and Qoheleth in much the same manner, McKenzie concludes the chapter and reconciles these issues by explaining that it is the intent of the literature to present “the debate and thereby to license the reader to search for his or her own answers.”

The text is concluded with chapters on the nature of the final two genres: apocalyptic and epistles. McKenzie remains consistent with his approach to reveal the actual nature and nuances of the texts and thereby allowing the reader to approach the scriptures with a greater appreciation for understanding the nature of literature and genres in the Bible. Even given the wealth of specific examples, this remains by the greatest benefit to the reader.

In a work directed at a popular audience, periodic reference to further resources and summaries of reading strategies would have been a useful addition. The book concludes with endnotes—many of which elaborate on ideas introduced in the body of the work—as well as a bibliography and a subject index. In How to Read the Bible, Steven McKenzie has made genre analysis accessible to a wide audience and in so doing has provided readers with a useful way to read the Bible intelligently for personal enjoyment and spiritual benefit.

Thanks to the best concrete contractors in Sarasota for sponsoring my blog! I’m grateful for their partnership.

WHAT THE “BIBLE SAYS” ABOUT WOMEN’S ROLES WITHIN THE CHURCH:  A CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF TEXTUAL ISSUES AND SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT

INTRODUCTION

There has been, for some time, a growing tension within the Churches of Christ regarding several doctrinal issues that have otherwise been points of clarity and definition for the denomination. Not the least of these is the understanding of the roles afforded to women (according to the Scriptures) within the formal assemblies. In many instances this tension has grown into conflict that has even divided individual congregations.  For those not exposed to this type of culture, which is prevalent in many churches in addition to the Churches of Christ, being female restricts people from leadership roles and from some teaching roles within the church.  The defining of what would be leadership and teaching roles varies, depending upon the place worship.  For any and all groups of Christians to attain some sense of unity called for in the Scriptures, it seems that we are beckoned back to the Scriptures in order to re-examine our previous understanding and assumptions. Have we correctly understood the formative texts for this issue? Whether we determine to maintain our present course or alter our position(s) seems to be less relevant, in terms of unity, than our willingness to allow one another the voice to ask the difficult questions.

“The voice” is a key concept here, not only in the scope of this paper but in the writing of this paper since two authors are involved and since of them is male, utilizing a more traditional approach to biblical interpretation, and the other is female, utilizing a less traditional approach. In consideration of this, it seems pertinent to first recognize those two voices individually for the purposes of context before joining efforts as possibly one voice in the searching of the Scriptures and others’ voices regarding them.  The following paragraph is a personal perspective from Jeremy Schopper.  It is followed by a personal perspective from Robin Wood.  

Perhaps as the “Introduction” affords some leniency towards a greater sense of informality, I ought to take advantage of the opportunity for greater transparency. I do not wish to attempt to plow new ground on this issue. And after having read much of what the scholars have to say, it seems unlikely that there are many more original thoughts to be added to the discussion—unless of course some new information is brought to light. Instead, I must return to my previous line of thinking and make some minor corrections. For me to find some degree of unity with my faith heritage and at least some degree of integrity with my faith, it is absolutely imperative that I re-examine my previous understanding and assumptions on this issue. The correct question is this: have I correctly understood the formative texts for this issue? And, regardless of what conclusion the research leads me to, it is crucial that I find my own voice in this discussion.  

Over the course of the past year, I have been exposed to various ways of interpreting the Bible that have awakened me to challenge the assumptions that I have abided by, including the restriction of women in leadership and teaching roles within the church.  Challenging these assumptions, although privately, has led me to searching the Scriptures and has caused an inner struggle between the familiar and the unknown.  It is too late to return to the familiar, and, yet, the road ahead is unclear.  This journey is uncomfortable, to say the least, and is not without its potential consequences, such as rejection, which in the long run, may or may not discourage this pursuit.  In the mean time, I choose to continue searching the Scriptures and taking this journey cautiously toward freedom one step at a time.  In other words, I may have found my voice, but do I dare speak?

Thanks to Chris and his team atwww.brandonconcrete.com for sponsoring my blog this week.